Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/archive99

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion.

Contents

Delete - Completely humorless. Like someone gave mentally retarded children LSD, and entered them in the "write the most random shit possible" contest, and then sprinkled it with redundant jokes about them being gay or such. Really, really lame. -Prof. Ahh(to the)Diddums[FUCK-A-DOODLE-DOO!] 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe soft rewrite tag it. There is some good stuff here, along with some dross. A bit of a tidy and it will be fine. --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Delete Don't think it can be saved Mulehunter 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Have you actually tried reading it? I'll give you an extract just in case "Rich in history yet curiously bereft of modern culture, Italy was announced to be the No. 1 best-selling foot garment of 2004 by John Woo & Ralph Lauren." ...

Delete. One of those injokes I never liked. We already have WJU, and that should be more than enough acceptable vanity for everyone. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the rest of the delete votes, plus some in-jokes are plain stupid--SirManforman 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Isn't this supposed to be an injoke? I think it's described on HTBFANJS as vanity, but an example of good vanity, so it stays based on humor value. It's also mentioned on Worst 100 Uncyclopedia In-Jokes. And above all else, it's been nominated for deletion three times, yet survived. That's classic! Maybe it just needs to be cleaned up. --Kip>Talk•Works•• 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This article's been on here so damn often it's not even funny. Go root around in the archives if you don't believe me. —Hinoatalk.kun 03:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate it however, I'm starting a new campaign: keep articles that people will probably look up and edit. Also, what kind of encyclopedia doesn't have an article on feet? -- Le Cejak•<-> 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per Lounge nom. I actually think this idea has a certain amount of potential, but the article witters on about some totally obscure local team for far too long in vanity stylee, and it will probably never get reworked to something decent. --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete It should be "sore loser" of the year, anyway. -- Le Cejak•<-> 16:04, 24 October

There exists an esoteric programming language called Ook, although I don't know how correct the "code" in the article is. I'm generally in favor of deleting the other "AAA clones," but this one could possibly be kept if trimmed and verified. Pentium5dot1 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Meh, there's a lot worse out there. It's not very funny, and there are a few spelling mistakes, but it's inoffensive, and probably deserves a visit from the rewrite brush. Whether it will get one is another matter... --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. The first set of thesaurus lists is kind of nice -- "titty" -- and the idea is soundly satirical. ----OEJ 15:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Per OEJ. There's a good idea here - although it needs a tidy up, and a significant expansion. I might pop this on my "if things suddenly slow right down at work" list. --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with {{AAP}} per Sawblade5's explanation. I think the article was VFD'd previously and didn't really improve, but let's see if anyone is willing to clean it up this time. Pentium5dot1 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per Lounge. This was nominated last month since it was still a Work in Progress, but it's awful. It's about a Pokemon character, but a character from the Sonic the Hedgehog series is mentioned a couple of times for some reason, and it refers to the subject in question as an "emo", which is stupid. --Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreated deleted material, (you guys are probably aware this was previously deleted via VFD) and this is identical to the deleted version. I placed it on QVFD several times, and it still hasn't been deleted. Delete and CVP--SirManforman 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Deleted per "Previously deleted on VFD and no changes" rule. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. One look at the trivia section should be enough of a warning, although I did read the rest in search of an idea. There wasn't one. --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Abs. Like the idea, wan t to keep it. Hate the article, want to delete it. Having a small yet entertaining between these two forces in the confines of my skull. Abstaining until there is a winner. --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 09:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is closed, by the way. I just created the redirect, so it looks like it's open. Don't let that fool you. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete It's vaguely amusing, but at the end of the day it pushes all of the wrong buttons for me. Gratuitous namedropping, while in context, is rampant. Also, too reliant on "THEY'RE DEAD" for laughs, which I didn't laugh at. Plus, the fact that it's already been done, as well as the fact that I don't like it. Therefore, I say delete.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Its not that bad. It's a vaguely interesting idea, not shabbily executed, there's a couple of decent lines in there, it's not too random, dumb, listy or whatever. There are far worse articles than this. Maybe give it a rewrite tag, but I can't see why this should go. --SirUnderUser(Hi,HowAreYou?)VFHKUN 09:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)